So what did Microsoft do? Violate a patent for a "program which let's users type and format text"?
Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word
21–30 of 126 posts
Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word
#22Anyone know the specifics on what patent violation entails?
In this particular instance it was literal infringement meaning Microsoft literally copied i4i's patented technology. First of all, i4i is not a patent troll, they are a document management company that actively deploys the technology on which they have a patent. One notable case of such is that they used it to overhaul the USPTO's own internal database. Microsoft came to i4i and contracted them to help them move Wor…
They might be an honest, hard-working group of good people who got tricked and steamrolled by their business partner (Microsoft).
But their patent is still crap.
The first claim of the '449 patent covers essentially any code that maps external XML data into a document. There is simply too much existing art in the file manipulation and database domains for this to be anything but obvious.
Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word
#23Patent in question -
Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word
#24Google's acquisition of DocVerse is starting to make more and more sense.
Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word
#25This is good. We need more of these things to happen so that we can get some power behind the anti-software-patent lobby. Software patents have to become too dangerous to keep around, and that happens by things like this; right now, Microsoft and others use patents to lord over Linux and make vague threats about litigation. This is an important part of Microsoft's strategy, so software patents are important to them.…
I'd argue that, rather than banning software patents outright, the process by which these patents are approved should be put under high scrutiny and changed. For a lot of large companies, the approach really is similar to throwing everything against the wall and seeing what sticks. Having gone through the process recently, I'm amazed at how easy it is for an engineer to conceive an idea, pitch it to a few paralegals and lawyers, and get it written up to submit to the USPTO. IMHO, there's a big disconnect between the engineering minds that actually come up with legitimate patentable ideas and the IP attorneys that write and file the patents.
Getting rid of software patents altogether is quite extreme. You need a mechanism in place to protect the property rights of individuals and corporations. When there's absolutely no sense of preservation of property - whether it be tangible or intangible - innovation and risk taking are going to suffer.
Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word
#26This is good. We need more of these things to happen so that we can get some power behind the anti-software-patent lobby. Software patents have to become too dangerous to keep around, and that happens by things like this; right now, Microsoft and others use patents to lord over Linux and make vague threats about litigation. This is an important part of Microsoft's strategy, so software patents are important to them.…
I'd argue that, rather than banning software patents outright, the process by which these patents are approved should be put under high scrutiny and changed. For a lot of large companies, the approach really is similar to throwing everything against the wall and seeing what sticks. Having gone through the process recently, I'm amazed at how easy it is for an engineer to conceive an idea, pitch it to a few paralegals…
> Getting rid of software patents altogether is quite extreme.
Really? I'd think that most people in software have the opinion that there should be no software patents at all.
It's kind of silly, frankly.
Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word
#27Why is MSFT stock up for the day and for the week? Shouldn't this majorly affect their revenue?
Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word
#28I have absolutely no opinion about the validity of this particular patent, but I want to forestall a bunch of random griping.
Please, please don't post commentary that involves "just reading the patent" and thinking (a) you know what it means, or (b) saying that it's "obvious" from a cursory glance.
All patents need to be interpreted in light of their "file history", which is the correspondence between the Patent Office and the filer during the patent examination. It is literally true that the words in the text may not mean what you think they do.
It is not uncommon for patent claims to be completely changed by the file history, which in complex cases can comprise thousands of pages of back and forth; if you pay the copying costs you can get the patent office to send you the file for any particular patent.
If a patent has been litigated, you may be able to figure out what the court and the original patent examiner thought the patent meant by reading the lawsuit filings and judgement, but just looking at the patent by itself is not necessarily going to help you understand the details.
[IANAL, but I've been to the rodeo before.]
Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word
#29Meanwhile, the judge's decision was written in Microsoft Word (do lawyers still use Word Perfect?) May be Microsoft should stop selling Windows and Office in a couple of these jurisdictions. For serious document processing there still is no good alternative to Microsoft Office. I have a feeling that if this were to happen, the public would be losing a lot more than Microsoft itself.
Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the same time legitimate software patents can help to protect small software studios and startups. It is a double edged sword.
They're far more often used as bludgeons to drain the defense coffers of small software studios and startups. By the time a patent is granted, that startup has moved on to something better - show me a single software patent that a competent programmer couldn't develop in a few weeks given the description. Not the patented mechanism (that's generally obvious and we all know it), just what the invention is supposed to…
> show me a single software patent that a competent programmer couldn't develop in a few weeks given the description.
MP3.